ISIS; the NSA/CIA fallout?

MiloDublin

The NSA is collecting personal data on a vast scale. In addition the CIA has eyes and ears all over the Middle East so how come neither agency predicted the ISIS debacle in northern Iraq?
Depressing to think that they know who ordered a pizza in say Chicago but miss the really important stuff.
The fallout is going to be interesting to watch. Already John McCain has called for the entire nation security team to resign.

comongethappy

MiloDublin wrote: »

The NSA is collecting personal data on a vast scale. In addition the CIA has eyes and ears all over the Middle East so how come neither agency predicted the ISIS debacle in northern Iraq?
Depressing to think that they know who ordered a pizza in say Chicago but miss the really important stuff.
The fallout is going to be interesting to watch. Already John McCain has called for the entire nation security team to resign.

How did you know they didn't predict it?

I seen a similar prediction of a northern iraqi sunni pseudo-state in a US newspaper years ago.

They may know lots of things, they just dont tell you about it.

MiloDublin

comongethappy wrote: »

How did you know they didn't predict it?

Because Obama didn't preempt the takeover and so avoid a political embarassment which the Republicans have already started to exploit.

comongethappy

MiloDublin wrote: »

Because Obama didn't preempt the takeover and so avoid a political embarassment which the Republicans have already started to exploit.

Do we know that?

Again, ISIS's activities were well known..... You would imagine the CIA read wikipedia.

We dont know what the president gets in his daily security briefing.
And either was, what does it matter?

Whether he knew the next play of a jihadis army or not, it doesn't mean he can stand there on the road to Mosul blocking them.

Jonny7

MiloDublin wrote: »

The NSA is collecting personal data on a vast scale.

The bulk of which to prevent domestic terrorist attacks

In addition the CIA has eyes and ears all over the Middle East so how come neither agency predicted the ISIS debacle in northern Iraq?

Intelligence is limited, but they certainly knew of the threat

We also knew that Russia had eyes on Crimea, but because of the speed of decisions - no one could predict exactly

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

The bulk of which to prevent domestic terrorist attacks

Can I see the documentation on this?

What has Angela Merkal’s surveilance got to do with preventing domestic or international terrorist attacks?


Domestic terrorists? Is that the police?

aboysham

America funds ISIS, didn't you know?

Look to the state department.

comongethappy

aboysham wrote: »

America funds ISIS, didn't you know?

Look to the state department.

Show us.

Just the facts mind.

aboysham

comongethappy wrote: »

Show us.

Just the facts mind.

To point you in the correct direction i would have to bring you back to post ww2 but I don't want to end up like Sen. J McCarthy, thanks.

comongethappy

aboysham wrote: »

To point you in the correct direction i would have to bring you back to post ww2 but I don't want to end up like Sen. J McCarthy, thanks.

So you have nothing then.

Lots of heat.... Little light.

aboysham

comongethappy wrote: »

So you have nothing then.

Lots of heat.... Little light.

A secret group called "The Pond" provided the information to McCarthy, it's as true now as it was then.

comongethappy

aboysham wrote: »

A secret group called "The Pond" provided the information to McCarthy, it's as true now as it was then.

So.... the US directly funded ISIS.

You said it..... Now prove it.

aboysham

comongethappy wrote: »

So.... the US directly funded ISIS.

You said it..... Now prove it.

It's too long a trail to get into here, but if you'll buy the pints I'll bring the proof.

sin_city

@aboysham You will have to provide information but I would say it requires lots of investigation and to be honest it's not worth it.

You won't convince some people here no matter what you provide....I could bring up the Gulf of Tonkin and it will simply be ignored.

So don't waste your time trying to convince people that would rather stick their heads in the sand.....You have to learn about the history behind the history for yourself...I think you'd agree

Is it really so unbelievable? I mean the Mujahideen was funded by the US.....Clearly the freedom fighters/heart eating Syrians are funded by the US....I would like to see the proof on ISIS but I'll research myself rather than request someone on boards to provide it.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

@aboysham You will have to provide information but I would say it requires lots of investigation and to be honest it's not worth it.

It's not hard, it's just backing up a claim.

You won't convince some people here no matter what you provide....I could bring up the Gulf of Tonkin and it will simply be ignored.

Gulf of Tonkin is to do with Vietnam

Is it really so unbelievable? I mean the Mujahideen was funded by the US.....Clearly the freedom fighters/heart eating Syrians are funded by the US....I would like to see the proof on ISIS but I'll research myself rather than request someone on boards to provide it.

The FSA in Syria have been aided by the US, UK, France, Turkey - and recognised by many countries

There is no evidence the US has funded/trained/armed the extremist groups (like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra) that have been entering Syria

aboysham

I would like to post links but I can't.

Until last September the majority of the money for weapons going to ISIS was moved through Qatar.

When Obama changed the law to facilitate the supply of NBC equipment the Government came under more public scrutiny, since then the money is mostly moved through Saudi.

Why is this important? Qatar happens to be where the CIA has training camps for its Islamic foreign fighters and it needed to hide the direct connection.

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's not hard, it's just backing up a claim.
Gulf of Tonkin is to do with Vietnam

What has it got to do with Vietnam?

Tell me

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

What has it got to do with Vietnam?

Tell me

What has it got to do with Iraq ?

comongethappy

sin_city wrote: »

What has it got to do with Vietnam?

Tell me

sin_city wrote: »

I could bring up the Gulf of Tonkin and it will simply be ignored

You raised it.

You tell us?

sin_city

comongethappy wrote: »

You raised it.

You tell us?

That is all I needed to hear and explains 100% why you and Jonny hold the views you do.

Ignorance is a choice in today's world.

comongethappy

sin_city wrote: »

Ignorance is a choice in today's world.

You make quite the poster child for it!
You never seem able to back yourself with a reasoned argument.

All heat, little light.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

That is all I needed to hear and explains 100% why you and Jonny hold the views you do.

Ignorance is a choice in today's world.

Are you delusional enough to think you're the only one who knows about the gulf of Tonkin incident. Have some sense eh?

What relevance does it have to the discussion at hand? The imperative is on you to explain it's relevance to to the topic at hand as you're the one who brought it up. Instead you're throwing the name out there and feeling smug about your vast historical knowledge, it adds nothin to the discussion. It simply infuriates people.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Are you delusional enough to think you're the only one who knows about the gulf of Tonkin incident. Have some sense eh?

What relevance does it have to the discussion at hand? The imperative is on you to explain it's relevance to to the topic at hand as you're the one who brought it up. Instead you're throwing the name out there and feeling smug about your vast historical knowledge, it adds nothin to the discussion. It simply infuriates people.

It backs the theory of false flag events and the US manufacturing its own enemies.

ISIS is another example of this.

I think that ISIS is a chance for the US to get involved in Syria.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

It backs the theory of false flag events and the US manufacturing its own enemies.

"It happened before so it can happen again" is not evidence of something happening again

ISIS is another example of this.

I think that ISIS is a chance for the US to get involved in Syria.

Last I checked the US does not particularly want to get involved in Syria, not to mention "manufacturing" false flags involving thousands of Islamist attacking a fragile country and making 8 years of US deaths and billions spent on Iraq look even more pointless

Theories like this typically follow a certain narrative/belief (e.g. X country's government is evil therefore they must be up to something nefarious) rather than strong supporting evidence

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

Last I checked the US does not particularly want to get involved in Syria

Ha, that made me laugh.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Ha, that made me laugh.

Why? If the USA wanted to commit in Syria they would have done so by now. I don't think they actually know who they want to come out on top.

They could have used air strikes once chemical weapons were used. They could have had Turkey officially declare war after their plane was shot down.

They don't like Assad, that's for sure. But I think they've realised that whoever replaces him could be a lot worse for US interests in the Middle East.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Ha, that made me laugh.

Well think about it in terms of military intervention - the cost would be immense, the potential for the conflict to worsen, for US casualties, for the conflict to spread, for stalemate to develop (or worse) - i.e. the risks are very high from a military, geographical, historical, regional standpoint

This is mainly because Assad has a very strong well equipped military, as evidenced by their ability to fight 10's of thousands of rebels - homegrown, foreign veterans, foreign jihadists and all this despite the remnants of Assad's country largely being cut off from the rest of the world (excluding Russia/Iran/Lebanon)

The US, like most modern democratic nations is abhorred by the sheer scale of the violence and carnage, 10's of thousands killed, millions of refugees.. and as such has a responsibility, moral and humanitarian to help or resolve the situation, to search for solutions - exhaustive peaceful and diplomatic means have so far failed

Virtually every other country in the world has condemned Assad for his actions and subsequent actions, sadly most don't have the capacity to really do anything about it (re taking the intitiative on peace proposals, firmer action, etc)

The strategic and geopolitical reasons for intervention would be very low, regional stability would be a goal, as well as combating the increased extremism the conflict has attracted

Obama, supported by others, wanted to order limited 2/3 day punitive strikes on Assad's military for use of chemical weapons (far more people have died due to Assad's conventional weapons, but chemical weapons will always provide a stronger case for action) - however the fallout and grim lessons from the Iraq 2003 invasion put paid to that with many objecting

It's just a sad situation, Russia is blocking the UN, China is terrified of any slight oil price rise from a potential conflict - therefore the world has to sit by and watched Assad use his military to keep himself in power by any and all means necessary - thus creating one of the worst current man-made disasters

Little can be done but keep external international pressure on Assad, to keep pumping millions into agencies like the UNHCR and to keep encouraging regional countries to support the millions fleeing the conflict

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

It backs the theory of false flag events and the US manufacturing its own enemies.

LOLOL! Really? How?

ISIS is another example of this.

LOLOL! Really? How?

I think that ISIS is a chance for the US to get involved in Syria.

Ha! They didn't need ISIS for that, sport.

sin_city

Yeah you're right...The US wants nothing to do with Syria.

Imagine the cost?

You guys crack me up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/world/middleeast/obama-seeks-500-million-to-train-and-equip-syrian-opposition.html?_r=0

Brian? wrote: »

They don't like Assad, that's for sure.

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2246833.ece/alternates/s615/CHECK-USAGE-John-Kerry-President-Assad-dinner-2009.jpg

Is it for sure?

Do you know what double think is?

darklighter

$500m is chump change in the grand scheme of things, any sort of military intervention would cost a serious multiple of that.

Syria is the definition of being caught between a rock & a hard place; does anyone know which side emerging victorious would be of greater benefit to Syrians themselves and to the rest of the region & world?? Assad is a right little sh*t but some of the actions of those opposing him aren't exactly My Little Pony stuff. It'll be a long time before you see US boots on the ground in Syria as they wouldnt have a clue what the outcome would be after they got rid of Assad.

As for the US funding ISIS, you probably believe the US government was responsible for 9/11!

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Yeah you're right...The US wants nothing to do with Syria.

Imagine the cost?

You guys crack me up.

I don't see anyone claiming the US wants nothing to do with Syria. However the repeated attempts to smear the US efforts toward Syria as some sort of nefarious war-mongering agenda is pretty weak in fairness

The US has spent 2 billion on helping Syrian refugees so far. Many countries are trying to help in that regard, even the Russians, albeit reluctantly

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

I don't see anyone claiming the US wants nothing to do with Syria. However the repeated attempts to smear the US efforts toward Syria as some sort of nefarious war-mongering agenda is pretty weak in fairness

The US has spent 2 billion on helping Syrian refugees so far. Many countries are trying to help in that regard, even the Russians, albeit reluctantly

How much did they spend on Iraq spreading democracy?

Ha, I'm sure the million or so that died appreciated it.

Smear? You mean Wesley Clarke?

Thank goodness the people of the west stood up to the war mongering and stopped air strikes.

Double thinking....I going to spread peace by blowing the sh!t out of a country....Can't believe people support this...though thankfully your numbers are starting to diminish.

Jonny7

I thought there was going to be more debate on Obama and Syria, obviously not

sin_city

Jonny7 wrote: »

I thought there was going to be more debate on Obama and Syria, obviously not

You sound rattled there?

Ok, here's a question...Do you think the half a billion Obama wants to give is enough?

Will he have the success Bush had in Iraq by spending large amounts of money?

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

You sound rattled there?

Double thinking....I going to spread peace by blowing the sh!t out of a country....Can't believe people support this...though thankfully your numbers are starting to diminish.

I have literally no idea what you are talking about here, but it certainly doesn't seem to be anything to do with Obama and Syria or comments I made re refugees

Ok, here's a question...Do you think the half a billion Obama wants to give is enough?

It's a very tough call - the situation has changed drastically in Syria and it's just getting worse - now directly threatening other countries

Will the 500 million make a difference? well, to the moderate rebels yes, potentially it increases the chance they can oust Assad and also present a stronger fighting force against the extremists who have been drawn to the conflict

There are no easy choices left, they are only hard decisions. One of the worst potential decisions may be to do nothing - as evidenced by the serious situation in Iraq and the potential that this conflict is festering and spreading

sin_city

I guess for people like you the US did a good job in Iraq....maybe a million more can die...would that make you happy?

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

I guess for people like you the US did a good job in Iraq....maybe a million more can die...would that make you happy?

So me one quote from this thread that implies or even hints at anyone thinking the US did a good job in Iraq.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Yeah you're right...The US wants nothing to do with Syria.

I never said they wanted nothing to do with Syria. Straw man.

Imagine the cost?

You guys crack me up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/world/middleeast/obama-seeks-500-million-to-train-and-equip-syrian-opposition.html?_r=0



http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2246833.ece/alternates/s615/CHECK-USAGE-John-Kerry-President-Assad-dinner-2009.jpg

Is it for sure?

Do you know what double think is?

So in one article Obama is asking for money to overthrow Assad and in the other Kerry is having Dinner with Assad. Have you ever heard of nuanced response? Fund the rebels and attempt talk him into stepping down. It's hardly surprising.

What's your point re: doublethink?

sin_city

Who do you think is responsible for the death of millions of people in Iraq through invasion and before that sanctions?

Why can't the bankrupt US just leave these places alone?

Double think? I said what the US does and says...We're going to bomb Syria so they can have peace....we're going to overthrow the government so they can have democracy...total BS.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Who do you think is responsible for the death of millions of people in Iraq through invasion and before that sanctions?

Why can't the bankrupt US just leave these places alone?

Is this in response to me? I hold the US fully responsibly and never said otherwise. Are you actually debating with points that haven't been made?

Double think? I said what the US does and says...We're going to bomb Syria so they can have peace....we're going to overthrow the government so they can have democracy...total BS.

I get you now. But it's not doublethink unless someone believes it. Tell me who believes in here?

nacho libre

Jonny7 wrote: »

Will the 500 million make a difference? well, to the moderate rebels yes, potentially it increases the chance they can oust Assad and also present a stronger fighting force against the extremists who have been drawn to the conflict

I think the hope is to force Assad and his backers to the table. The US has calculated no side can win outright.

sin_city

He was at the table with John Kerry a few years ago having dinner.

I don't care about the US calculations....If the US government used generally accepted accounting principles to would have to declare bankruptcy so to me their calculations are BS.

How many people would have died in the countries where the US had invaded/bombed/overthrew a leader if the US had no done so?

Are you all justifying the huge numbers that died in support of US foreign policy?

The sooner their empire collapses the better.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

He was at the table with John Kerry a few years ago having dinner.

I don't care about the US calculations....If the US government used generally accepted accounting principles to would have to declare bankruptcy so to me their calculations are BS.

How many people would have died in the countries where the US had invaded/bombed/overthrew a leader if the US had no done so?

Are you all justifying the huge numbers that died in support of US foreign policy?

The sooner their empire collapses the better.

Who is this question aimed at? Me?

Because I'm doing no such thing.

Gringo180

sin_city wrote: »

I going to spread peace by blowing the sh!t out of a country....Can't believe people support this...though thankfully your numbers are starting to diminish.

This is spot on. How people think war brings peace (especially in the middle east) always baffles me. We just had the misfortune of having 2 psychopaths as leaders in the U.S and U.K at the time of the Iraq war.

Mr. Incognito

Worth a read

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/robert-fisk-the-caliphate-in-iraq-is-just-the-latest-enemy-in-our-war-on-terror-30375706.html